Cited by 134Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 64 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Artificial intelligence in nursing: an integrative review of clinical and operational impacts

Open access
Hassanein, Salwa, El Arab, Rabie Adel, Abdrbo, Amany, Abu-Mahfouz, Mohammad S., Gaballah, Mastoura Khames Farag, Seweid, Mohamed Mahmoud, Almari, Mohammed, Alzghoul, Husam·2025·Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract

Background: Advances in digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping healthcare delivery, with AI increasingly integrated into nursing practice. These innovations promise enhanced diagnostic precision, improved operational workflows, and more personalized patient care. However, the direct impact of AI on clinical outcomes, workflow efficiency, and nursing staff well-being requires further elucidation. Methods: This integrative review synthesized findings from 18 studies published through November 2024 across diverse healthcare settings. Using the PRISMA 2020 and SPIDER frameworks alongside rigorous quality appraisal tools (MMAT and ROBINS-I), the review examined the multifaceted effects of AI integration in nursing. Our analysis focused on three principal domains: clinical advancements and patient monitoring, operational efficiency and workload management, and ethical implications. Results: The review demonstrates that AI integration in nursing has yielded substantial clinical and operational benefits. AI-powered monitoring systems, including wearable sensors and real-time alert platforms, have enabled nurses to detect subtle physiological changes—such as early fever onset or pain indicators—well before traditional methods, resulting in timely interventions that reduce complications, shorten hospital stays, and lower readmission rates. For example, several studies reported that early-warning algorithms facilitated faster clinical responses, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes. Operationally, AI-based automation of routine tasks (e.g., scheduling, administrative documentation, and predictive workload classification) has streamlined resource allocation. These efficiencies have led to a measurable reduction in nurse burnout and improved job satisfaction, as nurses can devote more time to direct patient care. However, despite these benefits, ethical challenges remain prominent. Key concerns include data privacy risks, algorithmic bias, and the potential erosion of clinical judgment due to overreliance on technology. These issues underscore the need for robust ethical frameworks and targeted AI literacy training within nursing curricula. Conclusion: This review demonstrates that AI integration holds transformative potential for nursing practice by enhancing both clinical outcomes and operational efficiency. However, to realize these benefits fully, it is imperative to develop robust ethical frameworks, incorporate comprehensive AI literacy training into nursing education, and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. Future longitudinal studies across varied clinical contexts are essential to validate these findings and support the sustainable, equitable implementation of AI technologies in nursing. Policymakers and healthcare leaders must prioritize investments in AI solutions that complement the expertise of nursing professionals while addressing ethical risks.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This integrative review of 18 studies published through November 2024 finds that AI integration in nursing improved diagnostic accuracy, patient monitoring, workflow efficiency, and nurse well-being, while ethical concerns around privacy, bias, and overreliance on AI remain. It calls for ethical frameworks, AI literacy training, and longitudinal research across diverse settings.

Key findings

  • AI improved clinical diagnostics and monitoring: Jiang et al. reported AI-based FCM algorithms increased MRI diagnostic accuracy for ovarian endometriosis from 63.15% to 94.32%; Liu et al. found the iThermonitor WT705 detected fevers in 22% of patients versus 17% with standard mercury thermometers and up to 4.35 h earlier.
  • Operational AI tools streamlined workload and resource allocation: Rosa et al.’s nursing workload classifier achieved 72% accuracy and 82% AUC-ROC; AI-assisted postoperative follow-up reduced time spent on follow-ups, and the Nurse Healing Space app significantly decreased burnout scores, job stress, and stress responses.
  • Ethical concerns were prominent: data privacy risks, algorithmic bias, and potential erosion of clinical judgment due to overreliance on AI, with calls for robust ethical frameworks and targeted AI literacy training.
  • Quality appraisal found all 18 studies had moderate risk of bias via ROBINS-I; 15 of 18 met all five MMAT criteria, while three did not meet all criteria due to limited sample, insufficient randomization details, or convenience sampling.

Methods

  • Integrative review using PRISMA 2020 and SPIDER frameworks, searching PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore plus grey literature through November 2024; 18 studies conducted between 2020 and 2024 were included.
  • Inclusion criteria covered nurses or nursing staff using AI in clinical settings, quantitative/qualitative/mixed-methods designs, and outcomes on clinical outcomes, operational efficiency, workload, burnout, or job satisfaction; reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, commentaries, and non-empirical studies were excluded.
  • Quality and bias were assessed with MMAT and ROBINS-I, and findings were synthesized thematically into three themes: clinical and therapeutic advancements, operational optimization and staff support, and ethical implications.

Limitations

  • The paper states that excluding non-English publications may introduce language bias, and that heterogeneity of AI technologies and healthcare settings challenges synthesis and uniform conclusions. It also notes limited studies in low- and middle-income countries, scarce research on long-term sustainability, and insufficient exploration of AI’s impact on nurse–patient relationships, empathy, and compassionate care.
  • Evident from the text: most included studies had moderate risk of bias driven by incomplete adjustment for confounders, reliance on subjective or self-reported outcomes, and selective reporting; some used convenience sampling, small samples, or single-center designs, limiting generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1552372

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 64 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 45 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 66
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
76 of 76
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a significant gap in understanding the comprehensive impact of AI on nursing practice, particularly in diverse healthcare settings and across various AI applications.

    “However, there remains a significant gap in understanding the comprehensive impact of AI on nursing practice, particularly in diverse healthcare settings and across various AI applications.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The existing literature predominantly focuses on high-income settings.

    “Nonetheless, the existing literature predominantly focuses on high-income settings, indicating a need for more research in diverse and resource-constrained environments.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is limited evidence on the long-term effects of AI integration, the variability of outcomes across different healthcare settings, and the ethical challenges posed by AI deployment in nursing.

    “Specifically, there is limited evidence on the long-term effects of AI integration, the variability of outcomes across different healthcare settings, and the ethical challenges posed by AI deployment in nursing.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Algorithmic bias can lead to unequal treatment outcomes.

    “The risk of algorithmic bias is a critical ethical concern that can lead to unequal treatment outcomes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The humanistic and relational core of nursing is fundamental to high-quality patient care.

    “This balance is crucial to maintaining the humanistic and relational core of nursing, which is fundamental to high-quality patient care.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • MMAT description cites an unrelated reference

    Minor

    The paper cites reference 25 for the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, but reference 25 is a paper on thematic synthesis, not MMAT.

  • The cited study range contains 20 references, not 18

    Minor

    References 29 through 48 comprise 20 entries when counted inclusively, but the paper says it included and assessed 18 studies. The text does not identify which two references in that range were excluded.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 2020, State of the World’s Nursing 2020: Investing in Education, Jobs and Leadership
  2. Haddad, 2023, Nursing shortage, Br Med J, 3, 534

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 134

Metadata

Authors
Hassanein, S., El Arab, R. A., Abdrbo, A., Abu-Mahfouz, M. S., Gaballah, M. K. F., Seweid, M. M., Almari, M., & Alzghoul, H.
Affiliations
  • Cairo University (EG)
  • Beni-Suef University (EG)
Venue
Frontiers in Digital Health
Published
2025-03-07
Volume
7
Pages
1552372-1552372
ISSN
2673-253X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408238726
Cited by
134
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 44
FWCI
7.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence in nursing, clinical decision support, patient monitoring, early warning algorithm, wearable sensors, workflow automation, nursing workload, nurse burnout, AI ethics, algorithmic bias, data privacy, AI literacy training, nursing education, clinical judgment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review